This study was conducted by Spectrum Research & Consulting, Inc. on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a means to assess the attitudes, opinions, and concerns of law enforcement officers on gun control issues by surveying the members of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA).

The survey consisted of a direct mailing to the 2,388 members of PLEA. Of the 2,388 surveys mailed, 725 completed surveys were returned for a completion rate of 30.4%, which is generally considered as an acceptable return rate for a mail survey of this type, and based on our experience, is actually good in terms of eliciting responses from law enforcement officers, which can often be a difficult population to reach. Furthermore, the number of surveys completed and returned sufficiently compensates for rate of return, with a calculated margin of error of plus or minus 3%.

In December 1999, members of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association were mailed a one-page survey requesting their attitudes and opinions on selected issues on gun control. A letter from the Chairman of the Civilian Marksmanship Program was included with the survey providing an explanation of the intent of the survey and general instructions for its completion. Survey instructions directed respondents to return their completed surveys within the enclosed reply envelope. The deadline for the return of completed surveys was January 15, 2000, although surveys were actually accepted up until January 25.

In the analysis of the survey results, respondents were broken down into a number of subgroups: years served in law enforcement, gender, respondents’ perceptions of the most pressing cause of violent crime, and gun ownership.

Survey methodology for this project also took into consideration the possibility of non-response bias—as defined by Cochran in Sampling Techniques as the potential for those members "for which no measurement would be obtained" to have attitudes or opinions differing significantly from those members who did respond to the survey. Given the number of completed surveys, the potential for such bias is unlikely. Still, to diminish the potential for non-response bias, a survey was mailed to every member of PLEA, thereby increasing the potential number of responses and guaranteeing that every member of the given population had an equal opportunity to participate. Furthermore, non-response bias can also be a concern in relation to specific questions. For example, of the 725 law enforcement officers who responded to the survey, 65 (9%) marked "refuse to answer" for Question D ("Aside from your department-issued sidearm, do you have guns of any kind in your home?") and 8 (1%) simply didn’t mark any answer. As a group, these respondents may have very different views on the questions asked in the survey instrument. Therefore, we have included this set of respondents as a subgroup within the analysis of results.

The following written analysis also includes selected volunteered comments from respondents. Furthermore, any volunteered responses used in the written analysis of survey results is also rendered verbatim (without correction for abbreviations or grammar).

Members of PLEA were asked to identify what they perceived to be the "most pressing cause" of violent crime in the United States today, and respondents to this question gave a wide range of answers, including the illegal use of drugs (24%), the court system/inadequate sentencing (21%), poor parenting and lack of positive role models (18%), the decline of moral values (12%), and the breakdown of the family (10%). Results from this question are shown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1: Perceived "most pressing cause" of violent crime in the United States today

Given the range of different causes volunteered by respondents as well as the value certain "causes" may have in the analysis of the survey results, several of these categories ("illegal use of drugs," "court system/inadequate sentencing," "poor parenting and lack of positive role models," "television/media glamorization of violence," and "firearms") were included in the crosstabulation of respondent demographics to specific survey questions so that profiles of certain respondent groups could be made. For example, among those members volunteering "illegal use of drugs" as the most pressing cause of violent crime in the United States:

59% (102 of 173) had served in law enforcement more than 10 years. Bycontrast, among members who had served in law enforcement less than 3 years, only 9 of 55 (16%) volunteered "illegal use of drugs" as the mostpressing cause of violent crime.

86% (148 of 172) responded that the U.S. Congress has been only minimally effective or not effective at all in dealing with violent crime.

66% (112 of 168) marked that stricter gun control laws would be the least effective of five options given for reducing violent crime, with an additional 14% (24 of 168) marking the death penalty as the least effective option.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "In general, the criminal justice system is in need of major reform," 88% (151 of 172) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, including 50% (86 of 172) who strongly agreed with the statement, while only 11% (19 of 172) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.

The "court system/inadequate sentencing" was the second most often mentioned as the most pressing cause of violent crime in the United States. A brief profile of those respondents who volunteered the "court system/inadequate sentencing as the most pressing cause of violent crime showed:

92% (136 of 148) were male. Furthermore, 56% (83 of 148) had served in law enforcement more than 10 years.

90% (133 of 149) responded that the U.S. Congress has been only minimally effective or not effective at all in dealing with violent crime.

A higher than average proportion of these respondents (79%, or 118 of 149) marked that stricter gun control laws would be the least effective of five options given for reducing violent crime.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Based on my own experience, if the laws on handgun ownership were stricter than they are now, the overall number of violent crimes would be reduced," 84% of respondents from this subgroup (125 of 149) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, including 58% (86 of 149) who strongly disagreed with the statement, while only 13% (20 of 149) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.

A higher than average proportion of these respondents (86%, or 128 of 149) marked that stricter gun control laws would not be effective in preventing gun-related incidents in schools.

Many of the respondents who volunteered the "court system/inadequate sentencing" as the most pressing cause of violent crime in the United States also included specific comments:

(007) The laws are there. The hole in the system is in the courts. We arrest people for gun law violations and the courts plead them out or dismiss the charges. We don’t need more laws, why have laws at all if no one will enforce them.

(009) the juvenile justice system has got to become more effective. If we have a juvenile that breaks the law, then they should be punished appropriately. It makes me ill seeing juveniles given probation over and over again when they are found guilty of crimes.

(053) no punishment for the criminal. If person commits a felony, murder, robbery, rape, etc., if found guilty lock them up for a flat 25 years. NO DEAL.

(082) I believe that the best form of gun control is putting armed offenders behind bars for long periods of time. The laws we have will work if they are used. Virginia is having great success in their state by increasing all prohibited possessions. We need more of that.

(101) This country better take note, there is a problem with violent crime. I believe the one most important thing we can do to reduce violent crime in America is to get tougher judges who will hand over tougher sentences. These criminals need to know there are consequences for their actions.

(119) a badly broken criminal justice system. We don’t need tougher laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have. We also need to make convicted criminals serve the full sentences they are given instead of lightening them to parole, probation, early release etc., just to avoid overcrowding the prison system.

(178) I am a member of the National Rifle Assoc, and I was a responsible firearms owner long before I became a police officer. I learned most of my firearms safety while serving as an Army military policeman. I am still a proponent that responsible law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess firearms provided that they use them properly. Enforcement of existing laws and stricter sentencing guidelines, particularly for repeat offenders are what we need. Not more redundant legislation. Criminals will always find a way to circumvent the system. Don’t punish the law-abiding majority.

(305) We have laws now on the books that are already strict. If I arrest a student in school with a gun and charge him with a felony by the time it gets to court, you can be sure it will be a misdemeanor. Enforce the laws we have now!

(388) There is no truth in sentencing. If the crime that a person commits warrants 25 years, then they should serve all 25 years. Revolving doors in jails and prisons.

(447) Lack of any real prosecution by state agencies, prosecutors, etc. Also, lack of departments and police agencies that take a firm stance on enforcing laws to put violent criminals in jail. The department seems more concerned by "civil liability".

"Poor parenting and lack of positive role models" was volunteered as the most pressing cause of violent crime in the United States by nearly one out of every five respondents to the survey, and when combined with the "breakdown of the family" represents the single largest category at 28%. A profile of these respondents gave the following:

A higher than average proportion (35%, or 46 of 133) have served in law enforcement 5 years or less.

68% (90 of 132) marked that stricter gun control laws would be the least effective of five options given for reducing violent crime, with an additional 11% (15 of 132) marking stopping early release of criminals as the least effective option.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Immediate background checks on handgun purchases are an effective means of reducing gun-related crime," 58% (78 of 133) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while 39% (51 of 133) either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

A higher than average proportion (61%, or 82 of 133) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement "The Federal government should take legislative action to curb the amount of violence on television."

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Based on my own experience, if the laws on handgun ownership were stricter than they are now, the overall number of violent crimes would be reduced," 88% (102 of 132) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, while only 20% (27 of 132) either strongly agreed or agreed.

"Poor parenting and lack of positive role models" as a perceived cause of violent crime also attracted a considerable number of volunteered comments, some of which have been included here:

(007) Parents! It is the job of the family not government to raise children and teach them right from wrong. When families fall apart and don’t do their job, society falls apart. Parents need to be held responsible. Political correctness too often keeps educators, social workers, etc from speaking up when they recognize the danger signs.

(008) I believe family structure breakdown is the main cause of violent crime in America. Time and time again I come across youth who are going unsupervised and unaccountable for their criminal behavior to a parent. Parents are no longer together and lack support from close relatives when dealing with their children. Parents have no time for their children.

(036) we need to develop programs to restore stronger family values. Discipline needs to become more uniform in the courts and returned to parents in the home. Schools need to return to more traditional values, i.e.: closed campus, dress codes, uniform conduct codes and stricter discipline.

(073) When are we going to wake up and realize that we need more control of our people, not our guns

(145) turn this nation and it’s children and families back to God. Our school systems, thanks to our Government, allows children to go to school in black trenchcoats saying "Hiel Hitler" But they won’t let our children pray or our teachers teach God’s word. Is there, now , really a way to prevent something our government has initiated. Children who are hurting, confused, reaching out for attention will find weapons and a way to accomplish their missions unless we turn this country back to God. Christians must become a major overwhelming voice in this country.

(235) Parents being parents. As a parent it is our responsibility to teach children right from wrong, to know when something is not right with our children. Too many children are raising themselves. To many parents do not get involved in their children’s lives, they think children have rights. It’s time parents started raising their children

(377) I see children being raised in a violent environment by violent parents. This only raises violent adults, some even sooner.

(570) I strongly feel that parents should ultimately be responsible for their children. Cite em, fine them, and incarcerate them for what their children do. Motivate parents to care about what their kids are doing. I feel it is unacceptable that a parent would not know his/her child is making bombs in their home.

(658) There is too much government trying to do what parents should be doing. Laws will not raise the children. Parents need to be back in control of their children.

Although those respondents who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crimes in the United States represented only 6% of the overall number of members who responded to the survey, because of the nature of the study, "firearms" was included as a special category. A brief profile of those respondents who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crimes in the United States showed the following:

39% (15 of 38) marked that the death penalty would be the least effective offive options given for reducing violent crime, with an additional 32% (12 of 38) marking stricter gun control laws as the least effective option.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Immediate background checks on handgun purchases are an effective means of reducing gun-relatedcrime," 60% (24 of 40) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement,while only 38% (15 of 40) either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, "The Federal government should take legislative action to curb the amount of violence on television," 68% (27 of 40) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while only 28% (11 of 40) either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

63% either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement "Based on my own experience, if the laws on handgun ownership were stricter than they are now, the overall number of violent crimes would be reduced." By comparison, of the remaining 684 members who responded to this statement, only 18% (122 of 684) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while 80% (547 of 684) either disagreed or strongly disagreed, including a majority (50%, or 345 of 684) who strongly disagreed.

Those respondents who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crime also included comments. Some of these comments are included below and on the following page:

(088) Children should not have guns. If a child was involved in hunting, or a mandatory sport that uses guns, they need to have training in the use of that gun-and could only carry or use it with a parent/guardian present.
(102) kids should not have guns, period.

(169) Make it at least as difficult to obtain a gun as it is to get a drivers license. ie: before being allowed to own or even handle a gun (any type) a person must be educated in the use of a gun as well as the law and demonstrate proficiency.

(252) the sale of guns should be licensed. If the sale of alcohol is licensed, so should the sale of guns. If an individual would want to sell or trade their guns, they would have to go through a licensed company. They would have to shop.

(256) Kids under 18 years should not be aloud to possess firearms unless they are involved in a controlled programs like NRA. Juvenile judges should enforce and make mandatory sentencing for kids under 18 years caught possessing, using firearms illegally!

(314) Laws to limit amount of guns being made. Also, stiffer penalties for crimes committed while in the possession of a gun (misdemeanor and felonies) whether or not the gun is used.

(449) The availability to firearms (Saturday Night Specials) by the common criminal. When one is used the criminal weeps for forgiveness and uses his 918 background.

(510) We cannot depend on parents solely for training their children on gun safety. Police should be more involved in this area. Talking to younger children, no "three strikes" clause in weapon violations or crimes that involve weapons, first time offenders penalty should be prison and intensive probation.

(539) drugs, alcohol, which compound stress with the close availability of mainly hand guns leads to violence. The American way, according to movies and TV is to solve things with firearms or some type of violence.

(556) Criminal control not gun control, the first offense a fire arm is used in a crime with no one injured should be 20 years just for the firearm. No plea bargains or good time, if someone is injured or it is a second offense, mandatory life, no parole. If someone is killed, it should be the death penalty. It won’t deter some, but it will be the last time we have to deal with them.

Finally, given the interest in the media coverage and portrayal of violence following such incidents as the school slayings at Columbine High School, "television/media glorification of violence" was included as a category, and it should be noted that the media was more often mentioned as the most pressing cause of violent crime in the United States than firearms. A profile of those respondents who volunteered "television/media glorification of violence" as the most pressing cause of violent crime showed the following:

51% (31 of 60) had served in law enforcement more than 10 years.

90% (54 of 60) responded that the U.S. Congress has been only minimally effective or not effective at all in dealing with violent crime.

68% (40 of 59) marked that stricter gun control laws would be the least effective of five options given for reducing violent crime.

When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "The Federal government should take legislative action to curb the amount of violence on television," 84% (50 of 60) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while only 13% (8 of 60) either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

As with the other categories, those respondents who volunteered "television/ media glorification of violence" included comments:

(057) restrict the media, ie: movies, television, print, from glorifiying violence and broadcasting news stories such as Columbine High and O.J. Simpson trial hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, etc. Over-coverage inspires others to copycat so they can have their 5 minutes of glory on the media.

(082) I believe that media violence and violent video games have programmed children to be less sensitive to death and killing. Video games are murder simulators that give a bonus for gory death. I believe that children need to be protected from such influences and need better role models. The v-chip and a cop in every school would be a good start.

(100) National media circuses covering prior incidents guaranteed that disturbed individuals will try to top the latest score. These incidents have to stop glorifying the perpetrators and the weapons.

(103) In my opinion prevention would have to start in education of children at the age prior to entering school. When children are very young, if they are taught that violence on television is not realistic and should be regarded as entertainment, they may realize what actually happens when violence occurs. Children must be taught that violence asseen on television (news and fiction) is the exception and not the norm. Children shouldbe taught the consequences to themselves and victims as a result of violence. In real life, a dead person is not going to come back and make another movie. Dead is dead.

(289) Back to the Media: the Columbine killers were concerned with their post death fame! And who would tell their stories in films and television, they wanted to be the new "heroes" portrayed on screen

(298) Parents regulating the video games purchased and played by their children. Rating the violence portrayed in these videos, and if the children are allowed into violent realistic videos and commit crimes linking fantasy to reality, parents carry an aid and abet charge.

(515) I truly believe that the music/rap culture, violent movie scenes, and video games play a big role in these types of crimes. We have to suspend some of this type of so called "freedom of speech". Education is a must and youth should be shown the truth about what happens when another youth dies or is turned into a quad for the rest of their lives.

(543) first, quit making martyrs out of cold blooded killers. Their names should never be mentioned by the media. They recently released excerpts from their videos shows how they waned to go down in history. Well, through the media they succeeded. I don’t know the name of a single Columbine victim but everyone knows about Harris and Klebold.

Members were also asked to indicate which of five given options would be least effective in reducing violent crime, and of the 715 members who responded to this question, 496 (69%) indicated that "stricter gun control laws" would be the least effective option for reducing violent crime, with an additional 70 members (10%) marking "the death penalty" as the least effective option. Results from this question are shown in Table 2 below:

In conjunction with this question, members were also asked to rate the effectiveness of the U.S. Congress in dealing with violent crime. Of the 720 members who responded to this question, only 85 (12%) rated Congress’ effectiveness in dealing with violent crime as either very effective or somewhat effective, while 85% (615 of 720) rated Congress’ effectiveness as either only minimally effective or not effective at all, including over a third (36%, or 257 of 720) who rated Congress’ effectiveness as not effective at all.

Members were also asked to agree or disagree with a number of key statements. The results of this set of questions is shown in Table 3 and in Graphs #1 through #3:


	Strongly Agree	Disagree or	Not
	or Agree	Strongly Disagree	Sure
A Federal law should be passed	97%	3%	0%
allowing qualified law enforcement
officers to carry a concealed firearm
anywhere in the United States

People should have the right to own a	94%	5%	1%
gun for self-protection

The U.S. Constitution guarantees	91%	9%	0%
every law-abiding citizen the right to
own a gun

In general, the criminal justice	89%	10%	1%
system is in need of major reform

The Federal government should take	55%	41%	4%
legislative action to curb the amount
of violence on television

A gun is not an assault weapon if it	50%	45%	5%
fires only one bullet each time the
trigger is pulled

Immediate background checks on	47%	50%	3%
handgun purchases are an effective
means of reducing gun-related crime

Based on my own experience, if the	21%	77%	2%
laws on handgun ownership were
stricter than they are now, the overall
number of violent crimes would be
reduced

Other than for police and military, all	4%	95%	1%
guns should be outlawed

Looking beyond the first three statements, all of which a near-consensus of the members who responded to the survey either strongly agreed or agreed with, the one result that stands out here is members’ response to the criminal justice system: when asked to agree or disagree with the statement "In general, the criminal justice system is in need of major reform," 89% (641 of 723) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, including a majority (56%, or 399 of 723) who strongly agreed with the statement, while only 10% (74 of 723) either disagreed or strongly disagreed. This also corresponds with the relatively high percentage of members who identified the "court system/inadequate sentencing" as the most pressing cause of violent crime. Furthermore, among none of the subgroups tested did the level of agreement with the statement drop below 82%.

A majority of the members who responded to the survey also either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement "The Federal government should take legislative action to curb the amount of violence on television." Also of note, among certain subgroups, the level of agreement with the statement was significantly higher. As shown in Graph #1, those members who either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement were found in higher than average proportions among those members who volunteered "television/media glorification of violence" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (84%), female members (73%), those members who do not personally own firearms (68%), and those members who volunteered "poor parenting and the lack of positive role models" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (61%).

Of note, while a majority of the members who responded to the survey agreed with the statement "A gun is not an assault weapon if it fires only one bullet each time the trigger is pulled," as shown in Graph #2, the level of agreement with the statement varied considerably within the subgroups tested. For example, among members who do not personally own a firearm outside of their department-issued sidearms, 73% (54 of 74) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Those members who either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement were also found in higher than average proportions among members who have served in law enforcement 11 to 20 years (62%) and those members who volunteered the "court system/inadequate sentencing" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (61%). Those members who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement were also found in higher than average proportions among those members who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (72%), members who have served in law enforcement less than 3 years (69%) and female members (60%).

Less than a majority of the members who responded to the survey agreed with the statement "Immediate background checks on handgun purchases are an effective means of reducing gun-related crime," although as with the statement tested in the survey concerning the definition of assault rifles, results broke along similar lines. Those respondents who either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement were found in higher than average proportions among members who do not personally own firearms (61%), female members (60%), those members who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (59%), those members who volunteered "poor parenting and the lack of positive role models" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (58%), members who had served in law enforcement 5 years or less (56%), and those members who volunteered "television/media glorification of violence" as the most pressing cause of violent crime (55%). Those respondents who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement were found in higher than average proportions among members who refused to answer the question about personal gun ownership (63%), members who had served in law enforcement 6 to 10 years (57%), and members who had served in law enforcement 11 to 20 years (56%).

A key question for this study was whether law enforcement officers viewed stricter gun control laws as an effective means of reducing violent crime. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Based on my own experience, if the laws on handgun ownership were stricter than they are now, the overall number of violent crimes would be reduced," however, only 21% of the members who responded to the question (146 of 724) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while 77% (561 of 724) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, including a near majority (48%, or 348 of 724) who strongly disagreed with the statement. Furthermore, as shown in Graph #3, among those subgroups where a majority of the respondents perceived immediate background checks as effective or disagreed with the survey’s statement concerning the definition of an assault rifle, the call for stricter laws on handgun ownership is not clear. In fact, even among those respondents who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crime, seeing "guns" as the problem did not automatically translate into a call for more gun control laws.

Finally, members were asked the question "In general, do you believe that stricter gun control laws would be effective in preventing many of the gun-related incidents occurring in schools?" Of the 723 members who answered this question, over three-fourths (78%, or 568 of 723) responded "no."

Of note, members’ comments on the subject of preventing school shootings provided insight. For example, a number of members offered views that such incidents would be difficult, if not impossible, to stop:

(012) after all is said and done, "nuts" will do bizarre things, making 100% safety and impossibility.

(028) This situation is almost impossible to prevent if a suspect is intent on executing such a plan. By having armed guards on school grounds or allowing specific school personnel to be armed, it would be possible to protect others through armed intervention. This action could possibly save lives and prevent additional casualties.

(049) I don’t think anything can be done to make a school totally safe short of strip searching every student every day. I think there are sick evil people everywhere and one can only try his best to identify and stay clear of these people. Place armed police/SRO’s on the campuses.

(073) It can’t. We have become a society that a small percentage of people believe that violence is the answer to their problems. These people feel the need for others to feel their pain.

(091) metal detectors may help keep some guns off campus but that wouldn’t stop a criminal intent on killing from walking past and shooting. The bottom line is that government can’t do what church and family is supposed to do.

(094) there is no way to tell who or when someone is going to go crazy and shoot people. This type of crime can happen anywhere such as a mall.

Other members tended to place an emphasis on better parenting, in particular parents being aware of and involved in their children’s lives.

		Number of
Years Served in Law Enforcement		Respondents	Percent
	0-2 Years	55	7%
	3-5 Years	131	18%
	6-10 Years	135	19%
	11-20 Years	186	26%
	Over 20 Years	215	30%
	(Left Blank)	3	0%


Sworn or Non-Sworn Employee
	Sworn	707	98%
	Non-Sworn	8	1%
	(Left Blank)	10	1%
	Sex
	Male	638	88%
	Female	83	12%
	(Left Blank)	4	0%

		Number of
	Personally Own Firearms	Respondents	Percent
	Yes	577	80%
	No	75	10%
	Refused to Answer	65	9%
	(Left Blank)	8	1%

•	89% of the members of PLEA who responded to the survey either strongly agreed or agreed with thestatement "In general, the criminal justice system is in need of major reform."

•	A majority of members either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement "The Federal government should take legislative action to curb the amount of violence on television." In fact, even among the small percentage of members who volunteered "firearms" as the most pressing cause of violent crime, 61% agreed that legislative action to curb the amount of violence on television should be taken.
•	Over two-thirds of the members who responded to the survey indicated that "stricter gun control laws" would be the least effective option for reducing violent crime. Furthermore, when asked to agree or disagree with the statement "Based on my own experience, if the laws on handgun ownership were stricter than they are now, the overall number of violent crimes would be reduced," however, only 21% of the members who responded to the question (146 of 724) either strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, while 77% (561 of 724) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, including a near majority (48%, or 348 of 724) who strongly disagreed with the statement.


	Survey of Members of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA)
	December 1999 — January 2000